Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

Originally when TNG ended and Generations was being produced, I (and pretty much everyone else) thought that was a great idea. The TNG cast, like the TOS cast, were logically making the transition to films, and DS9 would be able to pick up the slack for the small screen.

The reality of course was very different. DS9 and every other Trek series that came after it just got lower and lower ratings, while the films were anywhere from moderately successful to complete bombs.

So I changed my tune. I felt that instead of making the films, they should have continued TNG, but with a new cast. But since most TV shows that have a cast change after so many seasons inevitably get cancelled anyway not long after (and the fact that Voyager was basically the same as TNG anyway but for a different cast and ship, and that show was no ratings bonanza), that wasn't really the answer.

So basically I'm left with, "The transition to films was the right thing to do at the time...they should have just made better films." And, "They should have stopped producing TV Trek series while the films were being produced, and produce one show only after the movies had run their course, thereby putting all the money and focus on that one show, theoretically making it a better show."

Originally when TNG ended and Generations was being produced, I (and pretty much everyone else) thought that was a great idea. The TNG cast, like the TOS cast, were logically making the transition to films, and DS9 would be able to pick up the slack for the small screen. </p>
The reality of course was very different. DS9 and every other Trek series that came after it just got lower and lower ratings, while the films were anywhere from moderately successful to complete bombs.

So I changed my tune. I felt that instead of making the films, they should have continued TNG, but with a new cast. But since most TV shows that have a cast change after so many seasons inevitably get cancelled anyway not long after (and the fact that Voyager was basically the same as TNG anyway but for a different cast and ship, and that show was no ratings bonanza), that wasn't really the answer.

So basically I'm left with, "The transition to films was the right thing to do at the time...they should have just made better films." And, "They should have stopped producing TV Trek series while the films were being produced, and produce one show only after the movies had run their course, thereby putting all the money and focus on that one show, theoretically making it a better show."

Which, unsurprisingly, seems to be what is happening now.

Click to expand...

:thinks: There is much truth in this, though I do think the films and one television project can co-exist relatively peaceably. Just look at TFF/TUC, which were produced alongside TNG.

Another thing to factor in is that the original series movies were being produced by a completely different team to the TNG series, whereas the TNG films were all made by the very same production team who were balls deep in two other ongoing projects at the same time. Maybe what Berman should have done is moved over to dedicated film production, and left television Trek in the hands of a new broom. Or they could have moved TNG to the big screen, but given it over to experienced hands like Nick Meyer, leaving Berman solely in charge of television Trek. What they basically did in 1994 with Generations was move the film series "in-house", instead of it being a seperate, independent entity like it had been for the original series movies.

I do think moving TNG to film was a good idea. But from a production stand point it could have been handled a whole lot better.

I think the decision to have the two continuation series set in the contemporary for TNG was the wrong move. Unfortunately, DS9 had already started by that time and was running concurrently with TNG.

After TNG ended, and we go to the film-era, Voyager should have been set in the 25th Century.

Enterprise was a bomb primarily because we had just watched 21 seasons of the 24th Century, with its rich history and full of characters, and we had already had TOS with 3 seasons of the 23rd century, none of which reference the fact that a ship named NX-01 Enterprise ever existed. It was doomed from the start.

I think the show left on top. Creatively, even if the seventh season was a bit of a let down in a few ways, there were still a good amount of entertaining episodes, and the finale was easily the best finale of Trek, period. We often forget about episodes like "Attached," where Picard and Crusher finally come to grips with their feelings with each other, or seeing the ship from a unique, junior officer perspective in "Lower Decks."

There's so many good character arc endings in the seventh season that I can't fully dismiss the season outright. When it first aired, I was so in love with the characters that I was completely onboard, even though there was nothing as vividly memorable as "The Best of Both Worlds" or "The Inner Light" or "Family."

I think, if they had an eighth season, they could have regrouped, seen the faults of the previous season, and given us a higher quality finale season. But, as it stands, I love a lot of Season Seven (more than most people, I'd gather) and I wouldn't change anything.

I think the decision to have the two continuation series set in the contemporary for TNG was the wrong move. Unfortunately, DS9 had already started by that time and was running concurrently with TNG.

After TNG ended, and we go to the film-era, Voyager should have been set in the 25th Century.

Enterprise was a bomb primarily because we had just watched 21 seasons of the 24th Century, with its rich history and full of characters, and we had already had TOS with 3 seasons of the 23rd century, none of which reference the fact that a ship named NX-01 Enterprise ever existed. It was doomed from the start.

Click to expand...

I thought Enterprise was a bomb because the writing was terrible for the first 2 1/3 seasons.

Seven seasons was fine with me. Season 7 was suffering at times and if you read some of the background for that season the writers were really struggling to find new arcs and stories. It's possible that fresh writer's could have revived it but at the end of the day I think the show rant its course.

After TNG ended, and we go to the film-era, Voyager should have been set in the 25th Century.

Click to expand...

But how would setting Voyager in the 25th century have been any different? They were stranded in the Delta Quadrant, so whatever century it was in the Alpha Quadrant would have made no difference.

Enterprise was a bomb primarily because we had just watched 21 seasons of the 24th Century, with its rich history and full of characters, and we had already had TOS with 3 seasons of the 23rd century, none of which reference the fact that a ship named NX-01 Enterprise ever existed. It was doomed from the start.

Click to expand...

Enterprise did not fail because it was a prequel, or because the ship was named the Enterprise. It failed because people were sick of Star Trek, and it failed because people were running out of ideas and ran the brand into the ground, and it failed because it was more expensive to produce it than what it was returning in profit.

After TNG ended, and we go to the film-era, Voyager should have been set in the 25th Century.

Click to expand...

But how would setting Voyager in the 25th century have been any different? They were stranded in the Delta Quadrant, so whatever century it was in the Alpha Quadrant would have made no difference.

Click to expand...

Because we already knew what ships from the 24th century were capable of, particularly the Galaxy class (which was brand new as of TNG S1), so a much smaller Intrepid class ship should have had nowhere near the capabilities of the larger Galaxy class ship, especially without frequent stops at a starbase. It would have been more believable in the 25th Century, where random technobabble could be pulled out of their asses and the writer's could pass it of as "oh yeah, that got invented sometime in the last 50 years, you just never heard about it".

I liked GEN at first, especially the 23rd century opening scene. But the story after that has so many holes that the more I watch it the less I like it. FC was an excellent film all around, although it certainly would've made an excellent two-parter. INS is often panned because it was too much like an episode; maybe that's why I like it so much. NEM had some great moments but over all, it was only fair due mostly to weak writing in which the characters often said and did things that were out of character.

In hindsight, I wish TNG had stayed on TV and the producers had shaken things up. Promote Will to captain and give him his own ship, have him marry Deanna who would go with him, and promote Geordi to commander and have him be Riker's XO. Have them appear on occasion in special episodes. Promote Data to commander and have him be Picard's XO, bring up LaVelle to Tactical, promote Worf to lt. commander and place him at OPS, kill off Beverly to harden Picard a bit, and bring in a few new characters.

Because we already knew what ships from the 24th century were capable of, particularly the Galaxy class (which was brand new as of TNG S1), so a much smaller Intrepid class ship should have had nowhere near the capabilities of the larger Galaxy class ship, especially without frequent stops at a starbase. It would have been more believable in the 25th Century, where random technobabble could be pulled out of their asses and the writer's could pass it of as "oh yeah, that got invented sometime in the last 50 years, you just never heard about it".

Click to expand...

So what you're trying to say is that you wanted a better explanation as to why Voyager seemed to be perfectly fine for seven years in the DQ, without starbases? Well for starters, the size of the ship has nothing to do with anything. There's never been any indication that a larger ship is somehow better than a smaller one. TPTB could have made Voyager twice the size of the Enterprise-D instead of half the size, and the stories would have been exactly the same.

And technobabble was already used at an incredible rate in VOY. Why would 25th century technobabble make any difference? Bullshit is bullshit, no matter what time period it's used in.

And technobabble was already used at an incredible rate in VOY. Why would 25th century technobabble make any difference? Bullshit is bullshit, no matter what time period it's used in.

Click to expand...

Precisely because technobabble was used at an incredible rate. The technobabble in Voyager at times was complete bullshit. At least if it was 50 years later, they'd have a valid excuse. Voyager simply did things the Enterprise wasn't capable of doing.